On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 09:57:15AM +0200, Marcin Citowicki wrote:
> I'm not a dba so I'm not sure if the time it takes to execute this query
> is OK or not, it just seems a bit long to me.
This is perfectly OK. count(*) from table is generally slow. There are
some ways to make it faster (depending if you need exact count, or some
estimate).
> I'd appreciate it if someone could share his/her thoughts on this. Is
> there a way to make this table/query perform better?
You can keep the count of elements in this table in separate table, and
update it with triggers.
> Any query I'm running that joins with transactions table takes forever
> to complete, but maybe this is normal for a table this size.
As for other queries - show them, and their explain analyze.
Performance of count(*) is dependent basically only on size of table. In
case of other queries - it might be simple to optimize them. Or
impossible - without knowing the queries it's impossible to tell.
Do you really care about count(*) from 60m+ record table? How often do
you count the records?
Best regards,
depesz